To be precise, what happened a thousand years ago to introverted people who had less-than-ideal social skills, who these days might have ended up as the stereotypical geek? (Reference: What Is A Geek? by Mike Sugarbaker)
I presume that, in societies where survival depended on social and situational awareness, many people would have died in childhood or in fights, who survived in current times. But, assuming that one was skilled enough to survive the teens, what career paths were open to people who these days might do things that require a lot of brainwork and not many social skills?
The Church, for one. It was the main centre of intellectual labour in Western Europe. If you were really unproductive, then the family might not have minded trying to get you into a monastery or the (local) priesthood. But remember, more hands = more food (ideally), so if you could work enough to help the family, then it probably didn’t matter how awkward you were.
The church, which would include being a scribe. Artists. Alchemy / science / medicine, which I imagine would include mathematics. There’d be primitive engineering and architecture.
The Dark Ages is technically from about 400AD - 1000AD (so called because nobody really knows much about what happened then, when immediately post-Roman Empire the culture seemed to leap backwards in technology), but I don’t think you’re being that specific, and are probably including the Middle Ages and beyond.
The church, which would include being a scribe. Artists. Alchemy / science / medicine, which I imagine would include mathematics. There’d be primitive engineering and architecture.
The Dark Ages is technically from about 400AD - 1000AD (so called because nobody really knows much about what happened then, when immediately post-Roman Empire the culture seemed to leap backwards in technology), but I don’t think you’re being that specific, and are probably including the Middle Ages and beyond.
Another vote for monastery life. Actually, priests or monks quite often had nice income as well as quite good social standing, so it was considered a successful career, especially for people of less than noble descent.
If you were really socially inept you could join monastery and take vows of silence.
I always assumed that being a “geek” was a product of modern society, and that in days past, kids didn’t have any chance to become “geeks” because they were too busy with real responsibilities. Any male child back then would, as soon as he was physically able, be helping with the farm and busting his ass doing stuff that actually mattered, and was not able to sit around in his room all day and do whatever it is that geeks do.
Yeah. Geeky kids might not enjoy getting together with the rest of the clan to cut hay, shear sheep and pull turnips, but in the bad old days they would just have to suck it up and deal, because it’s either that or go hungry. And like a lot of superficially unpleasant things, they might have found that it wasn’t so bad, and after a bit of practice they might get good at it.
A geek is someone who is obsessed with the minutiae of what is often an academically oriented subject. It’s not about staying in your mother’s basement being afraid of girls, that’s merely a modern by-product of geekdom.
Sunspace, could you precisely define what you mean by “geek”? This is another case of someone asking a question using terms that aren’t well defined and allowing the discussion to drift on into confusion because no one agrees on what the question means.
It depends on what is meant by Geek. Some define it to mean an intelluctually inclined person.
If such a person were a peasant, then they worked the fields alongside their family.
If a geeky guy were born into a noble family, he’d be trained to fight alongside his family. But he might (might!) be able to read.
Relatively few got to join the church as priests. Even if every village had a priest, it’s still a small fraction of the population. And as for joining a monastary, Puppygod, it was more often an abode of nobility than peasants. If a poor child was left on the doorstep, that kid would end up as a lay worker employed by the monastary, not as one of the brothers. So he’d be plowing, picking, digging and hoeing just like all the other peasants. Only he’d be doing it for the monks instead of a noble lord. Even if he was really smart. Contrary to their founders’ intents, monastaries always ended up as a place where nobles sent their younger sons to live the cushy life. You usually couldn’t become a brother unless your daddy gave a “gift” to the monastary or you were wealthy in your own right.
Indeed, a slightly older definition of geek was of someone who performed geek show acts as openers of freak shows in traveling circuses. The geek was a wild man whose act typically concluded with the biting off of animal or insect heads (think Ozzy Osbourne). I’d think Dark Age parents would be inclined to steer their decapitating-type geek kids into a somewhat different career path than the stereotypical technology obsessed geeks—chopping block executioner is one line of business that comes to mind (teeth in lieu of an ax would surely draw a crowd :eek:).
However, during the middle age, becoming a monk wasn’t an option for the common people. Joining a monastery as a monk required a significant gift (called a dowry, like for brides, if I’m not mistaken). An ordinary guy could become a lay brother and till the fields of the monastery, but that wouldn’t be a very attractive option for a geek, I suppose.
Is it at all possible that personality traits (Shyness, awkwardness, introversion) that are allowed blossom in times of plenty would have been less tolerated and stamped out in leaner times?
I think it depends what sort of “Geek” someone was. Remember, they didn’t have Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings or The Internet back in 1000AD, and so there was a lot less to be “geeky” about.
I’m inclined to think that people who tended towards an interest in minutiae back then would have either ended up being Baldrick The Peasant Farmer Who Knows A Lot About Turnips, or Guy The Bloke In The Village Who Breeds Hunting Dogs, or Robin The Bird-Watcher, or alternatively, they would end up going on Crusade and trying to think of newer and more creative ways to build Crusader Castles and destroy Infidel cities.
Someone had to invent the Trebuchet and Greek Fire and Gunpowder and all those other Medieval Siege Weapons, and you can bet it was the same sort of people who were trying to work out how to make water catch fire or turn lead into gold back then who build the Space Shuttle and argue over the flight physics of an X-Wing fighter nowadays, IMHO.
You’re applying terms that simply don’t have meaning in, say, 950 AD.
In the Middle Ages, as indeed for most of human history, the vast, overwhelming majority of people were involved in either agriculture or animal husbandry, or both. If you were socially apt, you would probably end up being a farmer or a herder. If you were socially inept, you would probably end up being a farmer or a herder. If you were somewhere in between, you would probably end up being a farmer or a herder.
If by some longshot chance you were born into a different social station, you would probably end up doing that. Your career choices were very unlikely to be determined by your character.
One the Renaissance begins, your career opportunities expand.